SMT. LAKSHMI W/O SRI SIDDAPPAJI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER NO. 2240/4, 1ST FLOOR, GIRIYAMMA SHAMBU GOWDA COMPLEX, CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, [the Tribunal, for short] in MVC No. 7905/2009, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned Judgment and Order would, inter alia, contend that the appellants are illiterates, oblivious about the niceties of the procedures of law, particularly, lodging a police complaint immediately after the accident. The Tribunal failed to consider that from the date of the accident, all the medical records where the deceased was treated has mentioned the injuries sustained are due to the road traffic accident. That the Doctor who treated/conducted post mortem on the dead body had intimated the Victoria Hospital outpost. Police Station on 23.7.2009, the road traffic accident being the cause for the death of the deceased. The Victoria Hospital Police have registered crime No. 231/2009 under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter transferred the case for investigation for necessary action to MK Doddi Police Station, the same was received by MK Doddi Police on 18.9.2009 and thereafter FIR was registered under Section 279, 304[A] of IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Act, for short]. It was submitted that the Tribunal proceeded on the wrong presumption that the MK Doddi Police have delayed to register the case for a period of two months and there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay caused. In fact, RW.1, the Investigation Officer had admitted the registration of the case on 23.7.2009, RW.2, the Driver had admitted having driven the vehicle as well as the factum of the accident. RW.3, the owner of the vehicle had also admitted about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. There was no delay caused in registering the FIR. On the other hand, the evidence of RW.5 the Investigation Officer who recorded the statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet clearly establishes the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Even if there is any delay caused in sending FIR from Victoria Hospital outpost Police Station to MK Doddi Police Station, it is not of the fault of the appellants. It is further submitted that the approach of the Tribunal that the moped is the smaller vehicle, the scooter is bigger vehicle and the other injured have not hied the claim petition, the rider of the vehicle was not caught on the spot, the vehicle seized after three months are all irrelevant to consider the claim petition. The claim petition being made under Section 166 of the Act, the approach of the Tribunal in considering the claim as a criminal case for trial is absolutely erroneous. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments: